So then the European ones should join with European copyright holders to sue OpenAI/Anthropic and watch them trying to BS their way around what they train on.
Training a model on copyrighted material is fair use and copyright holders already operate a mafia-style extortion ring in Europe, so I don't think that's a good idea.
It’s really a pity, why can’t they feel superior while breaking ToS and copyrights just like Americans can feel superior over Deepseek while breaking ToS and copyrights?
Srsly. Welcome to my day job. I can see that the LLMs' center of training is so far off from where I'd need it, I can accelerate auxillary stuff but prompt never beats the weights and it constantly pulls back into it's middle...
Are we sure this is not just harmless and arbitrary information being parroted? Do we have verifiable sources other that anecdote? I find it hard to believe that there is just a single value for water intake across the massive biological spectrum that is humanity and expect to see a range when this conversation comes up. You're also getting water from foods, which I am sure is not being accounted for. Reminds me of the 10k steps a day that just happened to be "correct enough" to be believed and acted on. The truth is much more nuanced and depends on a number of factors in a person's physical health.
Without concrete verifiable findings, the best we can do is learn to pay attention to our bodies and drink maybe a little bit more water than we think we need to.
The European doctor quoted certainly said "3 liters" from both drinks and food (especially vegetables). In Europe I think we drink between 1 and 2 liters per day in actual water, depending on how dry the weather is.
Agreed. Being in the Midwest US, my intake also varies widely, depending on weather or season, physical activity, and the foods I've been eating.
I'm not entirely dismissive of doctors, be they European or American, as most I've encountered do have the patient's best interest at heart. But they are also human, and it is very easy to stick with the safe and easy answer rather than do the work to find the real answer. So when I hear claims like that, I immediately doubt them, assuming it is placeholder information because we do not know the actual answer. Unfortunately, a lot of our media in the US considers such "placeholder information" to be actionable, and ends up convincing the public (including doctors) of its veracity.
I always laugh about those ridiculously large water bottles American carry and how they remind you all the time that you must drink water as if I did need it. I wonder why that happens.
sure, there are different recommended amounts, the EFSA recommendations are 2.5l per day for a grown up man and 2l for a woman[0]. I'm a bit bigger than the average so I got 3l as a recommendation when I was on a diet or when I had specific issues.
But I didn't mean to imply everyone should drink it, just that it's not hard to drink that much. And yes, of course you ingest a lot of water through other means too.
I’ve always been extremely suspicious of constant water consumption. No other mammal seems to do this. Even the ones that require a lot of water like horses will only drink when they’re thirsty or while eating.
Its aggravated because the "water sensor" appears to fail early with age. Elderly people tend to not get the thisty feeling as often, but get dehydrated anyway.
I wonder how much of the effects of ageing are due to cascading failures downstream of alterations like these. For example, it's common for people to lose teeth in advanced ages. How much of this is due to dry mouths from insufficient water intake? Fallen teeth then may become entry points for infections, et cetera. Perhaps fixing a few early causes we can avoid a lot of negative effects and live more, without the need to go full spartan in lifestyle discipline.
I don’t know the exact things. I only know that diabetes would make this loss tremendously. As to teeth loss, it’s mainly because periodontitis but not age though it always goes worse as the age increases because of their life behaviors.
I feel much better when I drink more water: head, eyes, and body. And if I don't drink enough water during the day I'll cramp at night. Drinking lots of water to lose weight is nonsense – on this I agree.
In a nutshell, yes. It tries to anyways, but at the end of the day, some models get stuck and you hit a max iterations error that forge will raise, with some context, and the consumer can choose what it wants to do at that point.
I'd like to think so! ;). It has some brains, but the key insight was to send the model domain-agnostic nudges. I don't need to know what you're trying to do, the LLM already knows, I just need to nudge it back on the structural side: text response vs tool call, arg mismatch, etc. and let its knowledge of the context fill in the blanks (otherwise I'd need a massive library of every possible failure mode).
The other insight was doing it at tool call level and not workflow level, which addresses the compounding math problem more directly.
Maybe similar to Instructor [1] which was a cool tool for json and structured output enforcement combining pydandic with ai retry loops very handy for when models don't have that covered
I'd say, on averaged, it's 50% what you say and 50% communication issues.
Most smart juniors have no problem with learning. Perceptual exposure and deliberate practice works almost mechanically. However, if someone can't tell you what examples you should be exposed to, you'll learn crap.
This is the story imo. For a large percent of people, basically everyone born after 1980, technology has always reduced in price and increased in capabilities over their entire life. If sustained, which if you start with the Xbox price increase it probably already is, this is a secular change in the market for technology.
Yeah, given everything I'm not entirely surprised - I'm just curious if this is literally the first time a console has gone up in price post-release, or if I just wasn't paying attention the other times.
At my new job, I was assigned to improve processes with AI.
My first thought was, well agents seem nice, but I think, AI workflows are a better bet. However, I don't really understood AI or agents in depth and felt like I was just "doing things the old way" and removing flexibility from agents was a ridiculous idea.
After some research I got the impression that I was right. A well defined workflow and scope is just what's needed for AI. It's cheaper and more consistent. It probably even makes the whole thing run well with non-SOTA models.
